If This Goes On—" is a science fiction short novel by Robert A. Heinlein, first serialized in 1940 in Astounding Science-Fiction and revised and expanded for inclusion in the 1953 collection Revolt in 2100. One of his Future History series, it recounts a future theocratic American society, ruled by the latest in a series of “Prophets.” The First Prophet was Nehemiah Scudder, a backwoods preacher turned President (elected in 2012), then dictator (no elections were held in 2016 or later).Emphasis mine.
"The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an "awesome God" in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America." - Barack Obamaposted by rush at 12:56 PM on December 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Pastabagel: You are correct that it doesn't eliminate the additional evidence, but the evidence that one was a forgery absolutely requires Rather to prove affirmatively that none of the rest of that mountain of evidence was.Isn't this a logical impossibility?
BECK: No, no I’m just saying — Beck-Palin, I’ll consider. But Palin-Beck — can you imagine, can you imagine what an administration with the two of us would be like? What? Come on! She’d be yapping or something, and I’d say, “I’m sorry, why am I hearing your voice? I’m not in the kitchen.”posted by delmoi at 1:51 PM on December 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
- Kevin Phillips, Nixon strategist
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger".The sad truth is that code is precisely how the republican party speaks. and it has always been how they speak. it started with the civil war, back when the difference between the parties of the time was state's rights versus federal power, which was code for "can you make us stop keeping slaves." and we had to fight a war to say "yes we can." the funny thing, the thing Keillor (may he forever be as bored as he is boring) laments, is that it was the republicans fighting for the federal power to stop the states from keeping slavery legal. fast forward a little bit, and you've got the civil rights movement, from whence derive the above quotes. and here we've got... dun dun DUNNNNNNNN, the democrats opposing it? oh no, those are the DIXIECRATS! they're like democrats except at night they take their masks off and fly across town to the republican hq where they hatch their evil plot to completely annihilate the democratic party from within. let's look at their notable members, shall we? oh look! it's Strom Thurmond! these are the progenitors of today's republican party. so back in he good old days everyone likes to imagine existed, when republicans stood for values and ice cream and whatnot, what the republican party stood for was the right of the federal government to intervene in state government. that was its platform. the bad new days everybody talks about being so different? they STARTED when the republicans decided to swap their platform from federal power to opposing same, because they knew they could use it to get votes by appealing to southern racism, bigotry and hate. and they used code to do it, in their great Southern Strategy.
- Lee Atwater
"Yes, the right is the home of a lot of junk thought and huckstering exploitation. It's also the home of Milton Friedman and James Q. Wilson, Charles Murray and George Borjas, Richard Pipes and Robert Conquest, Tom Wolfe and Philip Larkin, Friedrich Hayek and George Stigler, Leszek Kolakowski and John Lukacs, Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami. I'll offset Sarah Palin with Margaret Thatcher, Glenn Beck with Melvin Lasky, Pat Robertson with Richard John Neuhaus.That's probably the most measured reaction from the right wing of the blogosphere, which otherwise has responded by calling Johnson, variously, a "lunatic", an "execrable CAIR tool", a "traffic-whore drama-queen", "crazy", the "Driver of Crazy Train", and "barking moonbat unhinged crazy". Something tells me this cycle of defection and excoriation has only just begun.
"Is Charles Johnson too proud for that company? Come on back LGF – it's when your team is doing worst that you are needed most."
« Older The Lost World of Old Europe:... | Harvard Study: Computers don't... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Burhanistan at 9:34 AM on December 1, 2009 [4 favorites]